Compromise is not a four-letter word

Published: Monday, February 18, 2013 at 4:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Friday, February 15, 2013 at 5:34 p.m.

The 113th Congress has been in session for a month now, and I’m deciding how I feel about that.

On one hand, of course, it is a good thing: A symbol, like the inauguration of President Barack Obama last month, of the country’s affirmation of our commitment to our democratic process. We change leaders and parties in power or reaffirm incumbent parties or leaders in a peaceful process — and have done so for more than two centuries. Truly, this is something to celebrate.

But given recent history, it also could be the start of another season of frustration. It got under way with another round of the seemingly endless political posturing and partisan politics. The compromises that seem so obvious to us out here in the real world (where folks actually work for their paychecks and have to worry about the cost of a gallon of gas or milk) seem to escape the vision of those living in the Washington bubble.

There are some issues that ought to be no-brainers — approving relief funds for the hundreds of thousands devastated by Superstorm Sandy, to take an obvious example. As Americans, we take care of our own in times of disaster, so why did this take more than two months to get done?

And if something this simple required work, how is Congress going to tackle the really tough issues such as the deficit, gun safety or immigration reform?

In fact, there is a way to do it, and it is summarized in one simple word: compromise. Lately, though, I’ve been thinking about when, or maybe why, compromise became a dirty word.

Our country was built on compromise. The very existence of Congress as a bicameral body, with one side based on the population (House of Representatives) and the other based on the states (Senate), was a compromise.

The Missouri Compromise of 1820, admitting Missouri as a slave state and Maine as free, was an attempt to preserve the Union by maintaining the balance of power between the slave and free states. It wasn’t a permanent solution, but it did stave off the Civil War for 40 years.

Of more recent vintage, in the 1980s, Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill worked with President Ronald Reagan, just as in the 1990s, Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich and President Bill Clinton worked together to pass significant legislation.

So what happened?

It frustrates me that in today’s political climate, when someone tries to move toward the other side’s position, while expecting a similar move from that other side (isn’t that what compromise is all about?), it is seen as an act of political party betrayal rather than a step toward a solution — or, dare I say it, a step toward doing something for the country.

I see the answers to my questions of “when” and “why” in the rise of political extremists — those who say, “My idea of compromise is for you to agree with my position.” Or those who take positions at a far end of the political spectrum on any given issue, or those who deem their ideological purity more important than legislating.

In the Nov. 26, 2012, issue of Time magazine, writing about his new book on Thomas Jefferson, Pulitzer Prize-winning author Jon Meacham says, “Governing and philosophical purity are not compatible.” Jefferson knew this. He believed in small government, and doing something as big as buying Louisiana from Napoleon violated his innate sense of the limits of government. But he also knew it was an opportunity for the country that he couldn’t bypass.

And that’s it in a nutshell. The extremists are not interested in governing; rather, they are more interested in putting forth their “politically pure” agendas.

But then … just when things look bleakest, I see a glimmer of hope.

The Senate voted in truly bipartisan fashion (94-3) to affirm John Kerry as the next secretary of state. At about the same time, a team of four Republican and four Democratic senators came forward with a serious joint proposal for immigration reform.

For sure, the motivations of both sides on the immigration issue are very different. For Democrats, it’s a matter of policy. The Republicans, as clearly articulated by John McCain recently, are looking at the results of the recent election and know they have to do something. They have seen the handwriting on the wall — and some of it is in Spanish.

But motivation doesn’t matter so much as getting things done. If we can get some meaningful immigration reform, I don’t care why people shift their positions.

There’s a long way to go, and both sides will have to give some. But folks, this is a good thing! It is not one side caving, giving in, losing or surrendering — it is our elected representatives actually legislating, governing.

We, the American electorate, put these folks in office, and we deserve to get good return on the money we pay them. It doesn’t matter if you are politically to the left of Timothy O’Leary or to the right of Attila the Hun. We are all Americans, and we have a right to be governed well.

<p>The 113th Congress has been in session for a month now, and I'm deciding how I feel about that.</p><p>On one hand, of course, it is a good thing: A symbol, like the inauguration of President Barack Obama last month, of the country's affirmation of our commitment to our democratic process. We change leaders and parties in power or reaffirm incumbent parties or leaders in a peaceful process — and have done so for more than two centuries. Truly, this is something to celebrate.</p><p>But given recent history, it also could be the start of another season of frustration. It got under way with another round of the seemingly endless political posturing and partisan politics. The compromises that seem so obvious to us out here in the real world (where folks actually work for their paychecks and have to worry about the cost of a gallon of gas or milk) seem to escape the vision of those living in the Washington bubble.</p><p>There are some issues that ought to be no-brainers — approving relief funds for the hundreds of thousands devastated by Superstorm Sandy, to take an obvious example. As Americans, we take care of our own in times of disaster, so why did this take more than two months to get done?</p><p>And if something this simple required work, how is Congress going to tackle the really tough issues such as the deficit, gun safety or immigration reform?</p><p>In fact, there is a way to do it, and it is summarized in one simple word: compromise. Lately, though, I've been thinking about when, or maybe why, compromise became a dirty word.</p><p>Our country was built on compromise. The very existence of Congress as a bicameral body, with one side based on the population (House of Representatives) and the other based on the states (Senate), was a compromise.</p><p>The Missouri Compromise of 1820, admitting Missouri as a slave state and Maine as free, was an attempt to preserve the Union by maintaining the balance of power between the slave and free states. It wasn't a permanent solution, but it did stave off the Civil War for 40 years.</p><p>Of more recent vintage, in the 1980s, Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill worked with President Ronald Reagan, just as in the 1990s, Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich and President Bill Clinton worked together to pass significant legislation.</p><p>So what happened?</p><p>It frustrates me that in today's political climate, when someone tries to move toward the other side's position, while expecting a similar move from that other side (isn't that what compromise is all about?), it is seen as an act of political party betrayal rather than a step toward a solution — or, dare I say it, a step toward doing something for the country.</p><p>I see the answers to my questions of “when” and “why” in the rise of political extremists — those who say, “My idea of compromise is for you to agree with my position.” Or those who take positions at a far end of the political spectrum on any given issue, or those who deem their ideological purity more important than legislating.</p><p>In the Nov. 26, 2012, issue of Time magazine, writing about his new book on Thomas Jefferson, Pulitzer Prize-winning author Jon Meacham says, “Governing and philosophical purity are not compatible.” Jefferson knew this. He believed in small government, and doing something as big as buying Louisiana from Napoleon violated his innate sense of the limits of government. But he also knew it was an opportunity for the country that he couldn't bypass.</p><p>And that's it in a nutshell. The extremists are not interested in governing; rather, they are more interested in putting forth their “politically pure” agendas.</p><p>But then … just when things look bleakest, I see a glimmer of hope.</p><p>The Senate voted in truly bipartisan fashion (94-3) to affirm John Kerry as the next secretary of state. At about the same time, a team of four Republican and four Democratic senators came forward with a serious joint proposal for immigration reform.</p><p>For sure, the motivations of both sides on the immigration issue are very different. For Democrats, it's a matter of policy. The Republicans, as clearly articulated by John McCain recently, are looking at the results of the recent election and know they have to do something. They have seen the handwriting on the wall — and some of it is in Spanish.</p><p>But motivation doesn't matter so much as getting things done. If we can get some meaningful immigration reform, I don't care why people shift their positions.</p><p>There's a long way to go, and both sides will have to give some. But folks, this is a good thing! It is not one side caving, giving in, losing or surrendering — it is our elected representatives actually legislating, governing.</p><p>We, the American electorate, put these folks in office, and we deserve to get good return on the money we pay them. It doesn't matter if you are politically to the left of Timothy O'Leary or to the right of Attila the Hun. We are all Americans, and we have a right to be governed well.</p>